This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have removed the following paragraph as it is not relevant to a discussion of the bluntness of Platform 11's PR.
This information would be more relevant to the Western Rail Corridor page. Curtains99 13:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
A number of edits have been added by Derekwheeler which do not conform to the Wikipedia neutral point of view policy. This user has added a a number of lengthy edits in good faith, however many of the changes are merely opinions stated as facts. It is not enough to add statements that are true: they must be based on verifiable sources. Without verifiable sources, they can't be added.
For example, the following text was added:
While this may be true, there is no accompanying verifiable source provided, and without a source, this sentence is just a matter of opinion.
source?
This language is not encyclopaedic. The phrase is opinionated.
This text is full of assumptions and opinions.
Where is the proof that it is well and truly unfounded? (just saying it isn't enough). Who considers secrecy an outdated and ignorant view?
As a result, I have reverted these edits.
Curtains99 10:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
This section has been deleted on the basis that
quotation not from a press release as quoted -> misleading and inaccurate to quote as such
. However, this paragraph did not state that that the quotation was from a press release, rather that it was a PR statement. The quote is from a user on boards.ie called P11 Comms, who appeared to be issuing communications on behalf of Platform 11. Did I misunderstand this?
This section clearly stated that the 'Blunt PR' only applied to early statements. Wikipedia entries are meant to include notable relevant information and Platform 11 certainly stood out from other lobby groups a few years ago given that its PR officer was making statements like this. Curtains99 11:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This sentence is POV
Claims of secrecy are unfounded.
I happen to agree with it but it's still POV. Let the facts speak for themselves and please remove this sentence.
Also, Mark could you sign your edits rather than making them from an anonymous IP. It is very difficult to make NPOV edits to articles about yourself or your own organisation but it helps if you don't do it under the cover of an anonymous IP. Curtains99 11:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Platform 11 used to have a section on its site called Rail Bashers, in which it criticised Kevin Myers and Seán Barrett for being anti-rail. Now you have removed this information along with the supporting reference to the page on your site. Why did you do this? Curtains99 11:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Excessive external links of an organisation are inappropriate per WP:ELNO. Its the job of the organisation's website to make these clear from its home page and not Wikipedia. Some may be re-introduced as in-line citations where a primary reference is appropriate for a non-controversial and non WP:OPINION content claim. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 06:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have removed the following paragraph as it is not relevant to a discussion of the bluntness of Platform 11's PR.
This information would be more relevant to the Western Rail Corridor page. Curtains99 13:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
A number of edits have been added by Derekwheeler which do not conform to the Wikipedia neutral point of view policy. This user has added a a number of lengthy edits in good faith, however many of the changes are merely opinions stated as facts. It is not enough to add statements that are true: they must be based on verifiable sources. Without verifiable sources, they can't be added.
For example, the following text was added:
While this may be true, there is no accompanying verifiable source provided, and without a source, this sentence is just a matter of opinion.
source?
This language is not encyclopaedic. The phrase is opinionated.
This text is full of assumptions and opinions.
Where is the proof that it is well and truly unfounded? (just saying it isn't enough). Who considers secrecy an outdated and ignorant view?
As a result, I have reverted these edits.
Curtains99 10:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
This section has been deleted on the basis that
quotation not from a press release as quoted -> misleading and inaccurate to quote as such
. However, this paragraph did not state that that the quotation was from a press release, rather that it was a PR statement. The quote is from a user on boards.ie called P11 Comms, who appeared to be issuing communications on behalf of Platform 11. Did I misunderstand this?
This section clearly stated that the 'Blunt PR' only applied to early statements. Wikipedia entries are meant to include notable relevant information and Platform 11 certainly stood out from other lobby groups a few years ago given that its PR officer was making statements like this. Curtains99 11:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This sentence is POV
Claims of secrecy are unfounded.
I happen to agree with it but it's still POV. Let the facts speak for themselves and please remove this sentence.
Also, Mark could you sign your edits rather than making them from an anonymous IP. It is very difficult to make NPOV edits to articles about yourself or your own organisation but it helps if you don't do it under the cover of an anonymous IP. Curtains99 11:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Platform 11 used to have a section on its site called Rail Bashers, in which it criticised Kevin Myers and Seán Barrett for being anti-rail. Now you have removed this information along with the supporting reference to the page on your site. Why did you do this? Curtains99 11:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Excessive external links of an organisation are inappropriate per WP:ELNO. Its the job of the organisation's website to make these clear from its home page and not Wikipedia. Some may be re-introduced as in-line citations where a primary reference is appropriate for a non-controversial and non WP:OPINION content claim. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 06:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)